The term fluency
is defined by The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing
as “freedom from word identification problems that might hinder comprehension”
(Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 85). Fluency bridges the gap between word
recognition skills and comprehension. In other words, fluent readers do not
spend inordinate time and resources decoding words and can therefore concentrate
on comprehension. When a student reads fluently, his decoding is effortless and
often so fast that he is unconscious of his ability to simultaneously
recognize, decode and comprehend.

Step into any classroom in the United States today, and you may encounter the following scenario. Students in a small
group take turns reading aloud a page or paragraph. One student is randomly
selected and begins reading “his” page. He begins to read orally and frequently
stumbles over words. The teacher constantly prompts him or even “gives” him the
correct words. He continues reading haltingly, word by word, with little or no
expression. He struggles to complete the page, and in doing so, punctuates his
reading with heavy sighs and breathing. After this labored attempt at reading
aloud, this student catches the teacher’s eye as if to ask, “Do I have to
continue? Am I through now? Don’t you want someone else to read?” The wish is
granted and now it is someone else’s turn to read, but not before the teacher
asks a few questions just to make sure everyone has comprehended the reading.
Of course, our friend is able to answer only a few, if any questions. Thus, it
is apparent that this student has derived little meaning from the printed words
on the page.

Why does this
scenario matter? Most scholars would argue that gaining meaning from the
reading is the ultimate goal in reading. However, in order for meaning-making
to occur, one must process the text accurately and automatically. Students who
do not read fluently, like the one in the example above, spend too much mental
energy decoding the words, often inaccurately, which likely results in poor
comprehension. This inability to read fluently and comprehend text can also
adversely affect an individual’s motivation to read. Students who experience
difficulty in acquiring basic word recognition skills are not as motivated to
read as their more capable peers. These dysfluent readers read less text in a
given amount of time than more fluent readers. Indeed, reading practice is
thought to be a powerful contributor to the development of accurate, fluent
reading (Allington, 2001; Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Krashen,
1993; Postlethwaite & Ross, 1992; Stanovich, 1986), yet research has
demonstrated that dysfluent readers spend less time reading than their more
able peers (Allington, 1983; 1984). It is nearly impossible for slower readers
to catch up with classmates who read at normal rates unless they invest
significantly more time and energy in reading.

Fluency has been a
neglected topic in the field of reading instruction in recent years. Currently,
however, there is a renewed interest in fluency among researchers and literacy
advocates. The National Reading Panel, for instance, considers fluency to be an
essential part of reading development and takes up the issue in some detail.
Further, some researchers have broadened an earlier working definition of
dyslexia as essentially involving significant deficits in “single word reading”
(Lyon, 1995) to one that combines the quick, accurate reading of text with
“good understanding” (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003). In this view,
dyslexics, among other difficulties, experience a striking and primary failure
to establish reading fluency.

Although there is a growing
awareness among some teacher educators that fluency is an important issue, this
is not reflected in serious treatments of the topic in methods texts—the work
of Rasinski (2003) is something of an exception here--or in general classroom
practice. In light of this, it seems important to survey some of the rich and
useful strategies that clinicians, teachers, and researchers have developed for
promoting this critical skill. This is a representative rather than an
exhaustive overview.

Effective
Instructional Techniques for Building Reading Fluency

There is a substantial
body of research that explores instructional interventions designed for
building reading fluency and for use in classrooms and reading clinics. Modeled
oral reading, supported oral reading, repeated reading, and performance reading
have established efficacy as instructional techniques designed to aid teachers
and clinicians in developing more proficient and fluent readers.

Modeling Fluent Oral Reading

Modeling fluent
oral reading for less able students may facilitate fluency development. Reading
aloud to students in an expressive, effortless, and natural manner provides a
model of what reading orally should sound like. Students are able to hear how
the reader’s voice “brings alive” the written text. By drawing students’
attention to the fluent, oral rendering of text, the message is conveyed that
meaning is communicated through the expression, intonation, and phrasing of the
words. Rasinski (2000) suggests asking students to remember how the teacher
read the passage and how the teacher’s expressiveness affected their
understanding. This enables teachers to send the message that fluent, oral
reading is more than just reading accurately (Rasinski, 2003); it is also how
the words are interpreted.

When reading aloud
challenging texts to students, teachers may adjust their reading rate and
demonstrate that fluent reading is not necessarily fast reading; again, the
emphasis is on deriving meaning and interpreting the text. When reading a
technical passage, the teacher may choose to slow down and process the text
more deliberately, and then discuss this adjustment of the reading rate with
her students (Rasinski, 2000).

Reading aloud also
provides students with an opportunity to hear text that they may otherwise be
unable to read on their own. As Cohen’s (1968) study demonstrates, modeling
fluent oral reading significantly increases comprehension and reading
vocabulary. Reading to students exposes them to more sophisticated vocabulary
(Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998); through read-alouds, students are exposed
to the vocabulary of decontextualized language that they are more likely to
encounter in written text than in oral language (Beck & McKeown, 2001).
This read aloud builds comprehension and vocabulary by providing a springboard
for meaningful discussions where students develop a critical understanding of
the text including specified vocabulary words.

Through a clear,
expressive, oral reading of text, the teacher can heighten students’ interest
in reading. This creates an enjoyable experience for listeners. As Trelease
(1995) shares with teachers, human beings are “pleasure-centered.” By reading
aloud to students, we are conditioning them to associate reading with pleasure.
Teachers who love to read their own materials and enjoy reading aloud to their
students are the pillars of successful models of fluent reading (Nathan &
Stanovich, 1991).

Supported Oral Reading

Teachers who
successfully model fluent reading understand the importance of moving students
toward a level of independence. Students may begin by watching or listening to
their more capable teacher read the text, then attempting the same task with
the teacher present in order to guide or assist the student with the task by
providing immediate feedback. Supported oral reading may be used as a
scaffolding device to ease the transition from total teacher modeling to
student independence (Rasinski, 2003).

Supported reading,
coached reading or assisted reading, refer to a more proficient reader
supporting the dysfluent reader. The more proficient reader progressively
reduces the assistance offered as the less fluent reader becomes more
independent (Rasinski, 2003). Rasinski characterizes supported oral reading as
having a minimum of two readers who read aloud the same text. Supported oral
reading may be depicted through different configurations.

Choral reading
one-on-one with a student has been referred to as the Neurological Impress
Method(NIM) or assisted reading (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). As
with most supportive methods, material at the student’s instructional level
should be read. Heckelman’s (1969) neurological impress method was used for
dysfluent remedial readers and was supposed to “impress” the words into the
student’s brain. Currently, this method involves the student and teacher
simultaneously reading the same text aloud at a reasonably swift pace. The
student sits with the teacher and they hold the book together. As the teacher
points to the words, she reads into the student’s ear. The teacher controls the
pace, expression, pitch and any other prosodic features and can adjust them
accordingly. This lesson continues until the teacher notices the student
becoming fatigued. Because this method of assisted reading is completed using
one-on-one teacher support, it is very labor-intensive but has been quite
successful in improving the reading fluency of remedial readers (Hollingsworth,
1978).

Another variation of
choral reading similar to the NIM involves pairs of readers. These pairs
usually comprise one reader who is more proficient than the other. Keith
Topping (1987) also recommends pairing adults (parents, teacher, aides, tutors)
with a student, as well as pairing two students. This technique is easily
adaptable for both classroom and clinical use. The material should be chosen by
the less proficient reader and should be on his instructional reading level.
The paired reading session may start out with both readers reading aloud
(together) the same text. However, the more proficient reader does not read
into the student’s ear as done during the NIM. The more proficient reader
should read with expression and intonation and should begin reading at a pace
slightly faster than what the less-proficient student may generally read. When
the more proficient reader notices the student gaining confidence, then the
more proficient reader should either stop or lower her voice to a whisper so
that the student is supporting himself more. There should be an established
signal that the less-proficient student initiates which indicates his desire to
read the text independently.

An adaptation of paired
reading is Marie Carbo’s (1978) “talking books.” Books are recorded on audiotapes or
CD’s and played for the student as he follows along in his copy of the book
during the initial reading. During the second reading of the book, the student
should read along with the tape. This reading along with the tape should
continue until the student is able to read the text independently. When
recording these books or stories, the more proficient reader should use caution
and make sure the recording is at a rate where the student is able to follow
along and attend to the printed text. The reader should also read with
expression and intonation when recording the text.

Older struggling
readers may use the recording technique as a way to build their reading
fluency. These older readers can record books for the purpose of assisting
children in elementary schools or even relatives in becoming more fluent
readers. Because the books or stories may not be recorded until the reader is
able to read the text fluently with proper prosodic features, this may take
multiple re-readings for these older struggling readers. After they have
practiced reading the text so that they are able to record the text with a
fluent reading, then they, too, have undergone a fluency intervention known as
practice reading or repeated reading.

Echo reading (Morris
& Slavin, 2002) is anther form of supported reading, which includes the
student echoing, or repeating, the lines of print the teacher reads aloud. The
material chosen should be no harder than the student’s instructional reading
level. The teacher reads aloud as she finger-point-reads the text; once again,
the teacher is reading with the appropriate prosodic features. The student then
echoes back the text, also finger-point-reading what the teacher just read
aloud. During this process, the student may feel comfortable enough to take the
lead. If this is the case, the teacher should gradually release the
responsibility of the reading to the student.

Repeated Reading of Connected Text

The oldest and most widely cited
and used method to improve reading fluency is the repeated reading technique
(Meyer & Felton, 1999; National Reading Panel, 2000; Samuels, 1979; 2002;
Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2001). Repeated reading requires students
to read aloud a passage at the appropriate reading level, several times, until
the desired rate of reading is achieved.The National Reading Panel
(2000) found the repeated reading method to be the only instructional technique
for which there is consistent, positive support of efficacy in increasing
reading fluency. In the two decades since its inception, more than 100 studies
have been published testing the repeated reading method (Samuels, 2002).

Why are repeated readings of text
so beneficial? As with any task, the more practice, the more natural and
automatic the task becomes. Fluent readers spend little cognitive attention or
mental energy on decoding words. Through practice in instructional level
material, decoding may become so automatic that there is plenty of mental
energy left for comprehension. Repeated reading offers this model of fluency
development.

Assisted repeated reading
requires a more proficient reader to be present. A 50 to 300 word passage is
chosen at the student’s instructional reading level (Dowhower, 1989). The more
proficient reader provides a “fluent first reading” for the less proficient
reader, where the focus is on reading the passage with appropriate accuracy,
rate, and prosody. The student practices reading aloud the passage until a
certain criterion reading rate is achieved.

After each reading, the teacher
or student may choose to chart the reader’s rate on a graph, or at least keep
some record of the reader’s rate (Allington, 2001; Blachowicz, Sullivan, &
Cieply, 2001; Dowhower, 1989; Meyer & Felton, 1999; Morris, 2005; Rasinski,
2003). The student should see the rate continue to rise, if the repeated
readings are effective. Typically only three to four re-readings with daily
sessions averaging 10-15 minutes are required to improve the reading rate
(Bowers, 1993; Young, Bowers, & MacKinnon, 1996;). Morris (2005) suggests
three readings for each passage. This process continues with the instructional
level material gradually increasing in difficulty.

As mentioned above, during assisted repeated
readings, the teacher may begin modeling for the student by orally reading a
portion of the text or by reading the entire text aloud, focusing on the
rhythmic and syntactic cues of the passage with prosodic reading (Meyer &
Felton, 1999). The student then reads the text multiple times throughout the week
in the presence of the teacher. If the student begins to compromise the meaning
of the sentence or reads inaccurately a large portion of the sentence, the
teacher may draw his attention to the miscues or ask the student to reread the
sentence (Morris, 2005).

The repeated reading techniques
require reading rate benchmarks, and many reading scholars have used or adapted
Hasbrouck and Tindal’s (1992) curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for
students in grades 2-5 to create criteria for reading rates (Allington, 2001;
Blachowicz, Sullivan, & Cieply, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000). The
criteria depend upon the grade level of the passage being read. Rasinski (2003)
uses the following criteria when targeting the number of Words Read Correctly
Per Minute (WCPM), which offers a combined accuracy and rate score:

Grade Level Target
Number of WCPM (Rate and Accuracy)

Late First Grade (Second Half) 60

Second Grade 90

Third Grade
100

Fourth Grade
110

Fifth Grade 120

Sixth Grade and above
140

Morris (2005) suggests a range as a guide to expected oral
reading rates:

Grade Level Target Range of WPM (Rate)

First Grade 30-70

Second Grade
60-90

Third Grade
80-110

Fourth Grade
95-120

Fifth Grade 110-140

Sixth Grade 110-150

Seventh Grade 115-160

Repeated readings have proven
efficacy in improving student’s decoding, rate, and comprehension when
implemented on a regular basis. Reading clinics across the country use repeated
readings as a method for developing fluency in struggling readers. The
one-to-one teacher to student ratio creates an intimacy that motivates and
engages students in these clinical settings. However, classroom teachers with a
25 to 1 student to teacher ratio may face challenges in implementing repeated
readings in the classroom. An option for classroom teachers may be to pair a less
fluent reader with a more fluent reader to reduce the direct responsibility of
the classroom teacher. Either way, orally reading the same passage multiple
times provides the practice dysfluent readers need in order to become more
accurate and automatic when decoding the text; thus, freeing cognitive
resources for the demands of text comprehension.

Although many classroom teachers are
intellectually aware of the scientific evidence supporting repeated readings,
many teachers still face the dilemma of how to make repeated readings appealing
and engaging. Performance reading may offer a variation of repeated reading
where students are provided with a legitimate purpose for completing repeated
readings.

Performance Reading

Performance reading embraces the
primary feature of repeated readings (Allington, 2001; Martinez, Roser, &
Strecker, 1999; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991; Rasinski, 2003). Students read
and rehearse a script, poem, speech, or passage multiple times throughout a
week in preparation for their week-end performance. Because students are
performing for an audience, students are charged with repeatedly reading their
text with the notion of “hooking their audience” (Nathan & Stanovich,
1991). This requires students to engage in a full understanding of the text if
their performance is to render full audience engagement (Rasinski, 2003;
Stayter & Allington, 1991).

Poetry begs to be performed and
offers the elements of repetition, rhythm, rhyme, and word phrases that may aid
in developing fluency (Perfect, 1999). By reading aloud poetry, students
perform repeated readings for authentic purposes. The meaning of poetry is
carried not only in the written words but also in the oral interpretation. This
can become an enjoyable and exciting part of a classroom experience. Poetry
Coffeehouses or Cafés provide a creative setting for imaginative and personal
performances. The performances reflect individual interpretations of poems
while providing the opportunity to practice toward fluent expressive reading.
In addition, poetry’s brevity engages many students, and often, they are not as
reluctant to read poems multiple times.

While poetry tends to be an
individual performance, Reader’s Theatre engages many in performance reading.
In Reader’s Theatre, the emphasis is on reading the spoken words from the
script with the appropriate gestures. This form of repeated reading requires
students to execute the performance with fluency and a full understanding of
the text while heightening student interest in pronunciation, intonation,
duration, and pitch of their oral language; dialogue is also emphasized and
enhanced with appropriate gestures such as shrugging shoulders, facial
expressions, pointing fingers, snapping, nodding heads, chin scratching, etc.
(Flynn, 2004). Planning and extensive practice time must be allotted by
classroom teachers for successful performance reading.

Many teachers
plan for multiple Reader’s Theatre performances each week. Because most scripts
include between five and ten parts, a typical classroom with 25 students may
include three to four “Theatre Troupes” each week. During a weekly theatre
session, each student in the class is provided a copy of the group’s script
with his part highlighted. Teachers may choose to assign parts or students may audition
for the parts. The teacher usually reads through the scripts with each group
modeling a fluent reading of the text to be performed. In addition, the teacher
also asks students comprehension questions which may focus on story elements,
characterization, reader response, etc. Students are often assigned to read
their parts of the scripts at home and then have time in class to practice or
read their scripts (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004). With this amount of
repeated reading, it is very likely that students may read and reread their
parts as many as 20 times before the performance. It is critical that the
teacher meet with different troupes to provide feedback before the performance;
this feedback may focus on the correct pronunciation of words, reading with
expression and emotion, and reading with the appropriate rate and volume. Then
on Fridays for approximately 15-30 minutes, it is time for each troupe to
perform.

Reader’s Theatre differs from
plays or other types of performances because readers read their parts aloud
rather than memorize them. Reader’s Theatre encourages students to interpret
the text that they are reading and to read with an appropriate speed or
rate rather than just simply reading fast.

Strategies like Reader’s Theatre
and Poetry Café provide an authentic venue for students to perform a
script, poem, speech or play from a book or story they have read, using minimal
props (Allington, 2001; Martinez, Roser, & Strecker, 1999; Rasinski, 2003).
In each case, students read and re-read the script or poem so that in the end,
they will perform with fluency, appropriate prosody, and a complete and
thorough understanding of the text. Because props are minimal, students read
from their scripts, and use their expression, intonation, rate and other prosodic
features to convey the meaning of the story/poem to audience members. A
flawless performance results from many repeated readings. These methods of
performance reading offer authentic, gratifying, and engaging forms of repeated
reading that are sure to motivate students and provide teachers with evidence
of students’ improved reading fluency (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004; Martinez,
Roser, & Strecker, 1999).

Conclusion

There is now
increasing evidence at hand that achieving fluency is necessary for effective
reading ability. Nonetheless, this issue receives comparatively little
attention in reading methods texts, journals devoted to practice, or at
national reading education conferences. It seems appropriate, therefore, that
educators more thoroughly acquaint themselves with both the breadth and depth
of strategies available for the cultivation of fluency. While this survey of
fluency instructional methods is not exhaustive, it does highlight useful
techniques that have shown positive results in clinical and quasi-experimental
research. The methods surveyed here offer teachers a variety of participation
structures that range from clinic to classroom, from individual to whole group,
yet all can be rewarding and engaging for students and teachers alike.

National
Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development.